Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Viper173

Polygon count

This topic is 5021 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

How many Tris are being rendered in a 3d game these days? I was surprised that my card was able to render 500,000 tris at 10 fps. and that's just a 9600 mob... I thought it would be around 50,000. But then I read something about Far cry to render 200,000 tris in a scene....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
What the actual fill-rate is isn't really that important. What is important is your game can render scenes at a playable fps on your target hardware. If fps changes significantly when you change the resolution then you're fill-rate limited meaning to get better performance you'll have to reduce fragment shader complexity, reduce overdraw, lower the amount of passes per frame etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, ....ehh.... yes!

If your game is too slow you can either draw less or draw it more efficiently to make it faster. I' aware of that...

no, I thought of comparing my polygon count to the one in latest games, and see how bad my skills are.
I can render about 40.000 tris at excceptable frame rate on my 9600 mob. So.... is that good or bad?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What frame rate and what kind of triangles? Are they unlit and untextured or do they have full per-pixel bump-mapping with gloss mapping? You've got a give a description of what kind of things you're rendering and the fps you're getting if you want to know if your game is really running as fast as it can.

Though IMO if it runs at a decent frame rate on your target hardware then it's fast enough, even if it could be faster it probably won't really make much of a difference,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that most studios, near the beginning of development, sit down and say to themselves, "Ok, it has to run on at least XXX with card with an XXXX CPU and XXX MB RAM and needs to maintain at least XX Fps at all times." Then, you develop, keeping in mind your base system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original Signature by Sunray
Perl - Made by Idiots, Java - Made for Idiots, C++ - Envied by Idiots



Ah well what can I say.I agree about C++ absolutely ;)

[Edited by - FireNet on September 14, 2004 2:18:46 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Viper173
I can render about 40.000 tris at excceptable frame rate on my 9600 mob. So.... is that good or bad?


what they are trying to explain is: its absolutely and utterly meaningless. if you use a dozen highres textures and 3 passes for everything and have highly complex physics compared to one lowres texture without any ai or physics, then is engine a bad because engine b can push 200k polys in a scene?

though, if all you want to hear is "40k is a joke and you suck", im sure somebody here can be bribed to do so ,-)

and no, if your fillrate bound then you CANT just "render more efficiently". if you need to fill x billion pixels you need to fill x billion pixels and "dumbing down" the shader or reducing the resolution isnt exactly "more efficient", just a compromise. and especially without even knowing your fsaa, af settings, resolution and WHAT your app is really doing there is NO way to tell if its good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, of course it depends on how you texture and lighten your triangles and how complex your shaders are and what else you do with your cpu...

I simply started this threat because I wanted to get an orientation . I think fps are a good measure to compare two engines.
For example: I was surprised how 'fast' Far Cry is actually running on my notebook and that the view distance is about one km.
On the other side there are games which obviously run slower although the scene complexity isn't even as great as the one in Far Cry.

How else do you wanna compare two engines? I don't believe that there wouldn't be a much better way to render things sometimes...

ok, ok then. Let's say I wanna render objects using one texture unit and do lighting with a vertex shader.
So I have to pass a vertex, uv coordinates for my texture, and the normal to my graphics card.
Using OpenGL, what do you think would be the 'best' solution to pass these information to the graphics card and still support compatibility for older cards such as GeForce 3 or 4???

And to satisfy you I don't even ask how many tris you could render at how many fps by doing this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!